Supporters Trusts in the UK: did you know?

[Union City Blue 0]

Guys - one point I would like to emphasise is that the Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust. I would not dispute that there is overlap in membership but I know for certain that some Trust Board members would not be known on FF and that there are people on FF who do not support the Trust.

 

The Trust does not moderate FF. I believe that some of the admins there are not particular trust supporters and I believe that several are not members either. I fully understand the cross-overs and common denominators and how things might be perceived, but I just want to make the point that FF is not the Trust and its incorrect to view the Trust solely on that basis.

[craig 5,199]

Guys - one point I would like to emphasise is that the Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust. I would not dispute that there is overlap in membership but I know for certain that some Trust Board members would not be known on FF and that there are people on FF who do not support the Trust.

 

The Trust does not moderate FF. I believe that some of the admins there are not particular trust supporters and I believe that several are not members either. I fully understand the cross-overs and common denominators and how things might be perceived, but I just want to make the point that FF is not the Trust and its incorrect to view the Trust solely on that basis.

 

I did know that UCB, apologies if it came across that I was associating the two.

 

I was about to make another statement to defend what I was saying but in doing so I would be making this as much an issue about FF as I would about the Trust (although one cant deny that there is most definitely overlap between the two. To be expected given the size of FF but the denial of criticism of the Trust on FF suggests more than just overlap, wouldnt you agree ?).

 

This thread should be about the Trust and I will stand behind my original two or 3 posts in this thread in that regard.

Edited October 3, 2009 by craig

[Union City Blue 0]

I did know that UCB, apologies if it came across that I was associating the two.

 

I was about to make another statement to defend what I was saying but in doing so I would be making this as much an issue about FF as I would about the Trust (although one cant deny that there is most definitely overlap between the two. To be expected given the size of FF but the denial of criticism of the Trust on FF suggests more than just overlap, wouldnt you agree ?).

 

This thread should be about the Trust and I will stand behind my original two or 3 posts in this thread in that regard.

 

Craig, my sincere thanks but there is no need to apologise for associating the two. They are associated via a degree over over-lapping membership and the fact that the owner of FF is also one of the 20 Trust board members. That is just fact.

 

My point is that (as far as I know) only 1 of 20 Trust board members moderates FF. If Mark wants to chop/ban/edit or whatever, that's up to him. It's his site and the Trust doesn't ask or tell him what to do, so the organisation shouldn't be accountable either. Incidentally, I post there quite a bit and I'm not dissing the thing at all. I'm just making a very clear distinction between FF and the RST.

 

Seriously. I am a member of the Trust and am now actively involved in trying to further the aims of the organisation and ultimately Rangers FC. I'm happy to discuss this now with you because you are being reasonable, but there's absolutely no way I'm going to explain or justify FF's editorial decision-making going forward because it has absolutely nothing to do with me, I am not consulted and it is not something the organisation I am involved with has any degree of say over. I hope that's understandable and acceptable to everyone!

 

Back to the issues, I take your original points on board and I hope to be able to debate them with you in a reasonable manner going forward.

 

Cheers :cheers:

 

UCB.

[craig 5,199]

Craig, my sincere thanks but there is no need to apologise for associating the two. They are associated via a degree over over-lapping membership and the fact that the owner of FF is also one of the 20 Trust board members. That is just fact.

 

My point is that (as far as I know) only 1 of 20 Trust board members moderates FF. If Mark wants to chop/ban/edit or whatever, that's up to him. It's his site and the Trust doesn't ask or tell him what to do, so the organisation shouldn't be accountable either. Incidentally, I post there quite a bit and I'm not dissing the thing at all. I'm just making a very clear distinction between FF and the RST.

 

Seriously. I am a member of the Trust and am now actively involved in trying to further the aims of the organisation and ultimately Rangers FC. I'm happy to discuss this now with you because you are being reasonable, but there's absolutely no way I'm going to explain or justify FF's editorial decision-making going forward because it has absolutely nothing to do with me, I am not consulted and it is not something the organisation I am involved with has any degree of say over. I hope that's understandable and acceptable to everyone!

 

Back to the issues, I take your original points on board and I hope to be able to debate them with you in a reasonable manner going forward.

 

Cheers :cheers:

 

UCB.

 

Reasonableness is really all we ask for on Gersnet, would you not agree from your experiences here ?

 

You are quite right not to comment on FF and how that forum is moderated and, in fact, I broke my own rule of not discussing other forums on here.

 

Either way FF is not the topic at hand so I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, of that there is no doubt. So apologies for that. I am also nt trying to make disparaging remarks about FF so if it also comes across to any members here who are also FF members then I also apologise for that - I am not a FF member so really dont have the tools to debate the forum anyway.

 

Re the Trust I am more than happy to discuss the merits and demerits of it at any point in time. It was almost inconceivable to me how the Trust went from being an up-and-coming supporters group with some GREAT initiatives (such as Gersave - at least IMO it was a very sound idea) and also being heard by the club and becoming more of a mainstream focal point to almost total implosion (again, IMO) in such a short space of time.

 

Up until the point of "implosion" much of the PR work by the Trust was very encouraging - every time you heard someone from the Trust speak it was done ith decorum and was obviously well thought through. The same goes for any press releases and/or articles on the Trust website.

 

So it is with disappointment that I see the "supermarket trolley" comment about Chick Young. There are many ways to skin a cat and I dont think petty name-calling will have enhanced the Trust's reputation one iota. It looked like petty name-calling, point-scoring and a "get it up ye" to Chick. Regardless of whether we agree with the sentiment, it shouldn't have been made by an organisation such as the Trust, IMO.

 

The rest of my observations from my original post stand UCB. Unfortunately much of the initial good work of the Trust was disintegrated when personal agenda and ego (in my opinion) took over. The Trust has a very, very long way to go in order to restore even a fraction of the trust of its membership, those that take an active interest anyway.

 

My hats off to you for stepping up to the plate, for having the willingness to take on what will undoubtedly be a thankless task, and also for having great intentions. I just hope that you dont get beaten down and tired out by ego, personal agenda and in-house politics before you realise the aims you see for the RST - which, I may add, would probably be the aims of most of the ground troop members of the RST.

 

I wish you nothing but good luck....... but allow me skepticism eh

[maineflyer 0]

I think that this point is very relevant. But given the changes seen at the Trust, the egos that became involved (before your time UCB) and the fact that as soon as Board representation became more than just a fantasy wish those egos very much stepped up to the plate....... at that point the Trust lost a great deal of the lustre it once held.

 

Unfortunately many of the people who TRULY had the club at heart rather then their own ego and wish to be "the man" saw a turn for the worse in the Trust and resigned, to be replaced with folks who no doubt will do their best but not as strong as those replaced, IMO.

 

I know I am not the only one to say this but I had very high hopes and expectations for the Trust (so much so that on top of purchasing my own lifetime membership I sponsored 10 folks from Gersnet for their annual membership) and when certain individuals became more heavily involved it was almost palpable how the Trust was changing, and not for the better. And I say this as an outsider looking in because I was not aware of any of the "players" when these changes were taking place but it was easily identifiable that changes were, indeed, taking place and it was pretty easy to see that it was for personal agenda in many cases.

 

The Trust COULD be "worthy and relevant" but sadly as long as those who got involved or pushed in a certain direction for personal agendas have tainted what was set out as a very noble organisation.

 

For the Trust to become relevant once more they, ironically, need to improve the TRUST of not just their membership but their potential new members.

 

The Trust really should be for ALL RANGERS SUPPORTERS and if, as Frankie has suggested, that an FF thread has sprung up claiming any negativity toward the Trust is "bile and vitriole" then that does nothing in regard to uniting the online Rangers community or attracting new members to the Trust, unless a strategy of decrying anyone with anything bad to say about Trust is expected to garner new members (and, ironically...... the Trust themselves have said they want the club to be more open and less opposed to supporters... yet they appear to be carrying out a similar "divide and conquer" strategy).

 

I cant speak for any other forum as I am only a member on Gersnet but from ANY discussion I have seen on here it is NOT "bile and vitriole". I hate to single anyone out but MF is our resident anti-Trust guy (sorry MF, couldnt pick a better term at short notice) and even he has actually been very civilised in his questioning and complaints about the Trust. If that is "vile and vitriole" then heaven help anyone who questions the Trust at the AGM - it will become no less of a sham than the club AGM.

 

If they are not open to constructive, meaningful, relevant and honest criticism then they dont have the appropriate people running it.

 

I say all of this with very much an open mind and with a great deal of sadness because, as I said, I had very high hopes for the Trust.

 

I also say this with not one finger of blame pointed at you UCB as you obviously have only just stepped into the breach.

 

If anything I would hope that the Trust would take on board and try to deal with the criticisms suggested rather than the SDM of "deny and deflect" which even the Trust, at one time, were disenchanted with.

 

I just wish that the ONLY agenda that was on EVERYONE'S mind was the CLUB and its BETTERMENT. Sadly it does not appear to be the case.

 

Craig,

 

I don't really mind being pigeon-holed and it's not the first time you've chosen to do this. But in this case I want to set you straight before you go any further.

 

I am most definitely NOT anti-Trust and never have been. Not once on any forum or in any conversation have I ever criticised Supporters Trusts or failed to confirm my support for such organisations. That my friend is a fact and if you haven't taken it on board then you haven't been paying attention.

 

I was an early RST member and subsequently converted to life membership. I promoted the RST to friends and family and believe I was responsible for a good number of new members joining. I am an avid believer in the fundamental aims of supporters trusts and would like nothing more than to see a Rangers Supporters Trust making an effecive and constructive contribution. I've never varied from that in anything I've written or you've read.

 

What you are confusing is the opinion I have evolved over the last three years or so about the way the RST in particular has been hijacked, mis-run and now marginalised by a small clique of self-promoters. I have frequently criticised the lack of achievement by our Trust and the loss of membership caused by these people, which I think I have every right to do and which has seldom been given any credible answer by those involved.

 

I'm far from alone in this and a great number of people have long openly questioned the running of the RST, including the inexplicable unity between the Trust and FF. We've watched division and barely suppressed conflict emerge within the RST elite, and we've waited in vain for any tangible results from this long and fractious exercise.

 

What you are seeing now and what you will see increasingly over the coming months is a concerted attempt by FF/RST to fight back against a hail of criticism. However, rather than address the criticisms being levelled at them, what is being offered is generally a combination of denial and counter-criticism. Don't expect any real change of performance. You should also understand that the impetus for this fightback lies largely with FF rather than the RST side of that coin. There have been numerous fans' initiatives, some of which are still current, where FF has declined invitations to participate and has effectively created its own isolation. This is being transposed into a sense of attack or criticism from other organisations and is intentionally being reflected (wrongly) in attitudes towards the Trust.

 

I have corresponded with several RST office bearers over the period and received numerous assurances of change and intention - but I've never been able to obtain any facts and have never once seen any of those intentions realised.

 

It's become a bit of a standing joke when I repeatedly ask for RST membership numbers on various forums and never ever receive and answers - so I just keep on asking because it keeps on illustrating the underlying problem at the Trust. I have heard RST board members openly lie to the media about membership numbers in order (presumably) to gain a representational credibility that simply isn't there. That's not good enough for two reasons. Firstly because a Rangers Trust should never be founded on blatant dishonesty. Secondly because as long as we assume crediblity on a false premise, we will never have any hope of achieving genuine credibility.

 

As long as I see reason to do so, I'll continue to comment on the RST and how it's being used. But please, don't ever confuse that with any lack of support for an effective Rangers Supporters Trust. I am NOT anti-RST and never will be.

 

Let's all hope that one day we have a vibrant, effective RST. Run by honest and able people who show genuine respect for a large membership. Until then.....

Edited October 3, 2009 by maineflyer

[maineflyer 0]

The only conclusion I can, as a semi-intelligent person, arrive at is self-interest.

 

STS is a very noble project and one which, in my opinion, is better than anything tabled by any other RFC fans group/organisation/fans. For the Trust to openly disassociate itself from it is very unpalatable and basically an open admission that unless they are "leading the charge" then they dont see it worthy of discussion.

 

As far as I am aware, only FF and the RST have not supported STS, is that correct ? Given the very worthy debating points of that project and the fact that it at least got recognised by the club, would surely have such organisations as the Trust and FF at least reviewing its worthiness, no ? Have either group made public why they dont support STS ?

There you have it, concisely put.

[maineflyer 0]

The point in bold is what has me chuckling in amusement.

 

The Trust have, IIRC, in the past accused the club of not accepting valid criticisms of it. FF has been even more vociferous in its criticism that the club has not allowed genuine criticism (I am generalising, sorry) yet here we stand with one organisation not allowing another organisation to be criticised in the same manner as they themselves profess to abhor from the club.

 

You couldnt make it up.

 

Sorry for transgressing, will try to remain on point in future posts.

 

You are on excellent form here Craig:).

[Bluedell 5,884]

Hi Frankie, thanks for your thoughts.

 

To be perfectly honest (assuming the remark of FF was intended to fly in your direction), I don't know which of the two sites you are involved in was being referred to by BearwoodBear but I did see the discussion.

 

I presume it's RM and VB, which is surprising given there are a fair number of pro-RST people on RM.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,884]

Obviously it's a slightly tricky one for me this, but I'm working on the basis that there's no RST 'policy' about where its board members can or can't, should or shouldn't contribute - it's left to the discretion of the individual. If someone beleives that discussion has been vitriolic and wishes to opt out on the grounds of taste then in my opinion they have to be free to make that choice.

 

You have Bearwood saying he wouldn't waste his time with sites like (presumably) RM.

 

You have the editor of a fanzine not renewing his membership over what he feels is a percieved favouritism to one fanzine over another.

 

You have the RST refusing to get involved in the STS project which had contributions from Gersnet and RM members.

 

What does the evidence suggest to you?

 

Why should I remain a member of the RST if it is felt that the sites that I contribute are a waste of time to the RST.

[Union City Blue 0]

You have Bearwood saying he wouldn't waste his time with sites like (presumably) RM.

 

You have the editor of a fanzine not renewing his membership over what he feels is a percieved favouritism to one fanzine over another.

 

You have the RST refusing to get involved in the STS project which had contributions from Gersnet and RM members.

 

What does the evidence suggest to you?

 

As you said yourself Bluedell, due to the personal hostility of (a small but motivated, energetic and vocal number) of contributors it's not easy for some people who may feel themselves that they have been subject to vitriol or whatever to engage in certain places. I think most people understand that. I didn't know about the fanzine issue you raise but I will check that out.

 

Why should I remain a member of the RST if it is felt that the sites that I contribute are a waste of time to the RST.

 

As I said, I'm fairly sure the roots of this issue can be traced to the personal hostility towards some people in the Trust in certain other places. You've got to admit that some of it comes across as personal and some of it is below the belt - I know I'm not alone in thinking that and there are non-Trust members/supporters who agree and find it distasteful. At the same time, some people don't post on FF due to feeling unwelcome and getting what they perceive to be abuse - the perceived difference being that on FF you get banned. But as I said before, that's up to Mark Dingwall, not the Trust.

 

I suppose the question is whether one decides to take the personal flak for the sake of the organisation or not, and that might depend on the degree of the offence perceived to be meant and taken. Not a very nice choice to have to make as a volunteer when we are all Rangers fans on Rangers boards. If that's how Bearwood feels, that's up to him but (& because) it's a personal decision. It's his own time and he is free to choose where to concentrate his energies.

 

It's not the Trust's policy or 'position' that other sites are a waste of time. That's why I'm here, my friend.

 

 

But much more important that that; I can multi-quote now, so a big thanks to Shroomz!